Outboards are incredibly polluting - WOW

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Tupaia

I do however object to the evangelical stance of eco warriors who have no understanding or empathy for the circumstances of others and have a narrow self centred and totally unrealistic view of the real world.

Everyone has an excuse for not supporting any meaningful action against pollution or climate change. Is it Al Gore on your dartboard? Or maybe it's Greta.

[Adelie]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

You're comparing apples and oranges. HP at the prop does not consider prop efficiency, and is not the same as propulsive power. Adelie's calculations are correct.

But your conclusion is correct. If you need enough power to plane a dinghy, an electric motor is not for you. Electric is only practical for displacement speed running over moderate distances.

Electric is a somewhat costly but very attractive alternative to a 2.5hp or 3.5hp outboard for those of us who primarily use the dinghy for ferrying to shore over moderate distances. Would be no good for the Caribbean.

As DH indicates I did the math for power at the prop, not actual propulsive efficiency.

If you need to plane you can do so over several nautical miles in a very light boat using EP.

If you need to plane a loaded boat (3 people) over a significant range (20nm) you’ll currently need an ICE outboard.

As a replacement for a 2.5hp ICE costs would be comparable.

Honda 2.3 - $955
Yamaha 2.5 - $1112
Tohatsu 2.5 - $1033
Suzuki 2.5 - $835
3gal tank -$40
Fuel hose - $75
Total: $950 for Suzuki.

MinnKota Riptide45 -$360
Kipawa prop - $37
Trojan T-1275 (120Ahr @ 5hr rate) - $240
Renogy 100W - $100
Victron 75-10 - $109
Cabling - $100
Total: $946 plus mounting for the panel

Anecdotally a 50W panel mounted flat can keep up with all of certain users needs.

A 100W panel on a tracking mount could probably directly power a dinghy at 2kt without drawing from the battery. I intend to test this at some point.

[Adelie]

Originally Posted by Tupaia

I don't think anyone on here has sneered at attempts to utilise alternative energy. I for one certainly do not decry any means available.


I do however object to the evangelical stance of eco warriors who have no understanding or empathy for the circumstances of others and have a narrow self centred and totally unrealistic view of the real world.



in my experience cruisers in general are a very ecologically minded bunch with a minimal carbon footprint compared to the general population.



If electric outboards were $30 each it would still not meet the real needs of the majority of live aboard cruisers.

There are plenty of members that have sneered at EP, mostly in other threads.

So you object to people expressing opinions you disagree with. OK.

It is my observation that on this forum there is really only one hardcore alternative energy member and there a number of rabid anti-EP members.

[seandepagnier]

Originally Posted by NPCampbell

1) You make the assumption that the Torqeedo is 95% efficient. However, with 1100 watts of power it only generates 520 watts of propulsive force. That's less than 50% efficient. How much of that is slippage? Heat?

The answer is it depends. This is ideal case 54% efficient for torqeedo. In many cases it is less efficient.

My sculling oar is about 85% efficient because it has 10 times the surface area of a torqeedo and has the efficiency advantage of variable pitch.

I built an electric outboard which is around 60% (pushes 33ft boat 2 knots using 120 watts) but I remade it again using a hub motor (planetary gears) so it should now be almost 70%. It will be interesting to test, and also more power.

We should be striving for 80-90% efficiency at least for general use. This is impossible to achieve by converting an inboard drive to electric.

Originally Posted by Dockhead

You're comparing apples and oranges. HP at the prop does not consider prop efficiency, and is not the same as propulsive power. Adelie's calculations are correct.

But your conclusion is correct. If you need enough power to plane a dinghy, an electric motor is not for you. Electric is only practical for displacement speed running over moderate distances.

Electric is a somewhat costly but very attractive alternative to a 2.5hp or 3.5hp outboard for those of us who primarily use the dinghy for ferrying to shore over moderate distances. Would be no good for the Caribbean.

They have electric hydrofoiling power boats with very high speed (20 knots cruising). The problem is all the fish the hydrofoils kill.

Originally Posted by wingssail

Load carrying: While cruising we often bring several large shopping bags of provisions back to the boat (a few hundred pounds). Sometimes we need to transport people, four to six. I guess a 3hp could do it but I have my doubts. This goes back to speed. We could transport the goods or people, just A LOT slower.

What you need is a decent sailing dinghy. I am never going to understand why you would not have this and mostly sail it if rowing is too difficult. It is easier to row when the wind is calm anyway.

[seandepagnier]

Originally Posted by Adelie

MinnKota Riptide45 -$360
Kipawa prop - $37
Trojan T-1275 (120Ahr @ 5hr rate) - $240
Renogy 100W - $100
Victron 75-10 - $109
Cabling - $100
Total: $946 plus mounting for the panel

Trolling motors run 20-25% efficient. I found another free one today (I may keep just to make a comparison) these things are free, not $360.

Furthermore, for $240 I could get a bigger lithium battery than that, and cabling does not cost $100. You dont need a victron controller, lithium bms cuts off from overcharge.

It really cost $240 + $100 = $360 to make electric for dingy.

Anecdotally a 50W panel mounted flat can keep up with all of certain users needs.

A 100W panel on a tracking mount could probably directly power a dinghy at 2kt without drawing from the battery. I intend to test this at some point.

100W is nearly a human output rowing. How fast can you row?

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Adelie

There are plenty of members that have sneered at EP, mostly in other threads.

So you object to people expressing opinions you disagree with. OK.

It is my observation that on this forum there is really only one hardcore alternative energy member and there a number of rabid anti-EP members.

That is not at all an exhaustive list of positions on EP.

Besides the categories you mentioned, you have some starry-eyed fanboys of EP with a lot of enthusiasm but little engineering knowledge, who believe in magic horsepower, solar powered EP replacing a diesel engine for long distance motoring, hybrid perpetual motion machines, and such things. These people come and go.

And you have people with serious engineering knowledge who try to bring some realism to those discussions. Sometimes this takes the form of "rain on the parade" pushback, but often based on correct and accurate information. Depending on the tone in which this is delivered, this is not the same as "sneering".

And then you have people like me who are neither EP fanboys nor anti-EP at all. I think that EP is fantastic for some applications, but not yet nearly a complete replacement for liquid fueled propulsion for other applications.

I am seriously considering EP for my dinghy. Would certainly work for my application, which is different from WingSail's application.

I think EP is fully ready for prime time for day sailers which can recharge at the dock overnight. If I had a J Boat or something I would seriously consider EP for that -- would be cool.

But I don't think battery storage of electrical power has quite reached a sufficient level of energy density to replace liquid fuel for long distance cruisers that need significant motoring range like me. This will certainly happen one day as the technology advances.

The one "hardcore alternative energy" person you mention, I think I know. If it's the same person, he's done some remarkable things with EP, more than what I thought would be possible, really pushing the envelope. He makes very interesting and valuable contributions. I don't think anyone "sneers" at him.

[wingssail]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Nothing wrong with WingSail's approach -- he doesn't own a car as far as I know, and travels by wind power. His annual dinghy fuel consumption is probably less than a week of fuel for the family cars of the average American family. He needs range and power in his dinghy for his use case. There's nothing wrong with what he's doing.

I do have a car, a very nice (old) Chrysler 300M Special, close to mint. I treasure that car, but it is not driven much. About 5,000 miles a year.

We sail when we can, just got back from a 1500nm cruise, far too much motoring but we had some nice sails, including a 48nm run under spinnaker averaging 8 knots, but Judy got the record for that trip at 10.5. She got to do the takedown as a reward. Sailing hard is a lot of work for two geriatrics, but it is fun and saves fuel.

Sean's point about a sailing dingy is worth considering.

Originally Posted by seandepagnier

What you need is a decent sailing dinghy. I am never going to understand why you would not have this and mostly sail it if rowing is too difficult. It is easier to row when the wind is calm anyway.

Sean, let me try to explain this, I'd love to have a nice sailing dingy, some of the Gig Harbor Boatworks models are terrific and I'd trick it out a little to improve the performance. There are two problems:

1. We do not wish to store a hard dingy on our deck. This is for our own views about what constitutes good seamanship. We keep our decks clear and everything secured. 38 years, a circumnavigation, and many hard ocean miles have validated that view. If you have stuff on deck, the sea will try to take it, and the sea is patient. Clear decks and a proper sailing yacht can take terrible weather and not be bothered. And it is safer, plus I just don't want to be bothered with clamoring around stuff on deck when I'm dealing with what has to be done there. So how do I carry this sailing dingy? And our boat is light, simple, and fast. I don't see any way to carry a sailing dingy without giving up a lot of that. If someone built a deflatable, good performing sailing dingy with some carrying capacity, I'd be interested.
2. Sailing to get a job done (like provisioning for a long cruise, or transporting a crew) is simply not possible much of the time. If you have a bit of breeze it is good, but if you have to row, any distance might be a bit much for me now, although it might be good for my health. Show me the boat which will sail, carry 4-6 adults, and can be effectively rowed, and I am interested. But still, I'd have to give up the exploring we do with our dingy. It is plumb foolish to take off on a 5 mile exploration of an island or bay relying on sail alone, you might have a damn long row home.

But we're trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. My current solution (inflateable 12' with a 15hp motor) is brilliant (cheap, easy, and low pollution) for what I do and what I'd like to continue to do. I just don't see the point of giving up all that utility which I have for something I can't even get just to signal my virtue. My pollution is not an issue for the planet.

[wingssail]

Originally Posted by GreenWave

Wingsail- um, I agree with 95% of what you said. But please don’t trivialize the plastic pollution problem and attempts to clean it up. Local beach cleanup efforts, while not having a global impact, do provide measurable relief for local habitats. Plastics pollution is already a problem and soon will be our #1 issue. I am making a concerted effort to reduce the use of single use plastics in my life.

Yes, Plastics pollution is a problem AND beach clean-ups give relief to the local inhabitants, however they do ZERO for the overall global impact. (and by the way, it's usually the cruisers doing the beach clean up's while the locals continue to dump trash in the river. I want to ask, when you were a kid did your mom clean up your room? I'm not cleaning up their beaches for them.)

If you were serious about solving the plastics problem then you'd start lobbying your politicians to enact some laws which place the cost of the clean-up (world impacts, not beach clean-ups) on the plastic manufacturers who produce tons of the stuff and care little what happens to it after it leaves their factory doors. If Dow had to put money aside and develop a plan for reclaiming and recycling, of every ton of the crap they produce, THAT would have some impact. The beach clean-ups are a joke.

By the way, I too make a concentrated effort to reduce my use of single use plastics and I don't throw stuff in the water or out the car window.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by wingssail

I just don't see the point of giving up all that utility which I have for something I can't even get just to signal my virtue. My pollution is not an issue for the planet.

Everyone is part of the problem.The average CF member has more resources and agency than most people. "Virtue signalling" is just a term thought up by deniers and those feeling attacked, to make something good and altruistic seem bad. No one who's serious is asking for token do-nothing actions.

Do whatever works for you. The only ask is that you have considered what you do, and its possible effect, and whether there's yet a viable alternative, or a small change in use, that might have a bit less impact. If there isn't... there isn't.

[wingssail]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

This is the crux of the problem isn't it; everyone else must change first, then maybe me. Well ok, have you voted for the guys who want to clean up the big messes, or the guys who say everything's ok/there's not a serious problem/we'll adapt?...

No, Lake-Effect, that's not what I am saying. I am not saying that I want to ignore the problems until everyone else changes first. I am happy to join a real movement to make some changes which will help the global situation. I am saying that people are totally fooling themselves if they think all of us changing to electric dingy motors will accomplish any thing of a global effect. It IS just VIRTUE SIGNALING.

I am happy to change if that change will accomplish anything, but I'm not interested especially when there is so much we could do that would have tremendous impacts, but we don't because it's politically difficult. Easier to just blame the little guys, (they are an easier target) but I don't buy it at all, if you want to save the planet, get real. Since you don't get real about it, I don't believe you really care.

[wingssail]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Everyone is part of the problem.The average CF member has more resources and agency than most people. "Virtue signalling" is just a term thought up by deniers and those feeling attacked, to make something good and altruistic seem bad. No one who's serious is asking for token do-nothing actions.

Do whatever works for you. The only ask is that you have considered what you do, and its possible effect, and whether there's yet a viable alternative, or a small change in use, that might have a bit less impact. If there isn't... there isn't.

No, you are wrong. Virtual signaling is when someone is claiming that they are doing something virtuous, to look good, when actually they are doing nothing.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

. . . "Virtue signalling" is just a term thought up by deniers and those feeling attacked, to make something good and altruistic seem bad. . . .

I would respectfully disagree with that. People doing things specifically to appear green or whatever, without actually having much effect, is actually a thing. People demanding such gestures from others, even when they are empty gestures, is also a thing. The phrase is apt, and descriptive of a real thing, even if it's misused by some people.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

. . . Do whatever works for you. The only ask is that you have considered what you do, and its possible effect, and whether there's yet a viable alternative, or a small change in use, that might have a bit less impact. If there isn't... there isn't.

I agree with that! It's not necessary to be a maximalist to have a big effect (sorry Sean! ). The best single thing you can do (we were discussing this), orders of magnitude more important than how you power your dinghy, is just to reduce meat and dairy consumption even by 50%, you don't even have to give it up completely if you don't want to.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by wingssail

No, you are wrong. Virtual signaling is when someone is claiming that they are doing something virtuous, to look good, when actually they are doing nothing.

Then maybe we could consider that there's also such a thing as IDGAF-signalling. or Yes-Im-concerned-but-we-cant/wont-do-anything-about-it-signalling too. Examples abound...

[wingssail]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Then maybe we could consider that there's also such a thing as IDGAF-signalling. or Yes-Im-concerned-but-we-cant/wont-do-anything-about-it-signalling too. Examples abound...

Of course

[seandepagnier]

Originally Posted by wingssail

5 mile exploration of an island or bay relying on sail alone, you might have a damn long row home.

Since when was 5 miles a "damn long row"? It isnt very far to row, and certainly not very far for electric motor.

My pollution is not an issue for the planet.

I dont think anyone ever said it was or wasnt. None of us are wise enough to know what an issue for the "planet" is

Your pollution is however an issue for other humans. If you look at what pollution the average person in 8 billion has and use that, your allowance is far exceeded before you even start using an outboard.

So by having one, you are essentially taking advantage of the world's poorest with an act of entitlement. People suffer because of the effects of war caused by and paid for with oil.

Originally Posted by wingssail

No, Lake-Effect, that's not what I am saying. I am not saying that I want to ignore the problems until everyone else changes first. I am happy to join a real movement to make some changes which will help the global situation. I am saying that people are totally fooling themselves if they think all of us changing to electric dingy motors will accomplish any thing of a global effect. It IS just VIRTUE SIGNALING.

The change, is no fossil fuel. This change is wide reaching and is not limited to outboard motors, but certainly includes them. It is essentially a requirement for the global change needed to consist of lots of little changes like this if you break it down that way.

I am happy to change if that change will accomplish anything, but I'm not interested especially when there is so much we could do that would have tremendous impacts, but we don't because it's politically difficult. Easier to just blame the little guys, (they are an

You said there is "so much we could do" but "we don't". This is a good way to summarize your replies regarding EP.

Originally Posted by Dockhead

The best single thing you can do (we were discussing this), orders of magnitude more important than how you power your dinghy, is just to reduce meat and dairy consumption even by 50%, you don't even have to give it up completely if you don't want to.

This is assuming your industrial meat consumption is high to begin with. Once meat consumption is reduced to a few percent of total diet, and meat produced without emissions, it is no longer as significant as other choices.

Even if everyone were 100% vegan, we would still face issues of co2 emissions. Simply not eating meat is not enough to solve the problem.